Background
A growing body of literature is available regarding the effects of plyometric jump training (PJT) on measures of physical fitness (PF) and sport-specific performance (SSP) in-water sports athletes (WSA, i.e. those competing in sports that are practiced on [e.g. rowing] or in [e.g. swimming; water polo] water). Indeed, incoherent findings have been observed across individual studies making it difficult to provide the scientific community and coaches with consistent evidence. As such, a comprehensive systematic literature search should be conducted to clarify the existent evidence, identify the major gaps in the literature, and offer recommendations for future studies.
Aim
To examine the effects of PJT compared with active/specific-active controls on the PF (one-repetition maximum back squat strength, squat jump height, countermovement jump height, horizontal jump distance, body mass, fat mass, thigh girth) and SSP (in-water vertical jump, in-water agility, time trial) outcomes in WSA, through a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized controlled studies.
Methods
The electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched up to January 2022. According to the PICOS approach, the eligibility criteria were: (population) healthy WSA; (intervention) PJT interventions involving unilateral and/or bilateral jumps, and a minimal duration of ≥ 3 weeks; (comparator) active (i.e. standard sports training) or specific-active (i.e. alternative training intervention) control group(s); (outcome) at least one measure of PF (e.g. jump height) and/or SSP (e.g. time trial) before and after training; and (study design) multi-groups randomized and non-randomized controlled trials. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. The DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model was used to compute the meta-analyses, reporting effect sizes (ES, i.e. Hedges’ g) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. Certainty or confidence in the body of evidence for each outcome was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE), considering its five dimensions: risk of bias in studies, indirectness, inconsistency, imprecision, and risk of publication bias.
Results
A total of 11,028 studies were identified with 26 considered eligible for inclusion. The median PEDro score across the included studies was 5.5 (moderate-to-high methodological quality). The included studies involved a total of 618 WSA of both sexes (330 participants in the intervention groups [31 groups] and 288 participants in the control groups [26 groups]), aged between 10 and 26 years, and from different sports disciplines such as swimming, triathlon, rowing, artistic swimming, and water polo. The duration of the training programmes in the intervention and control groups ranged from 4 to 36 weeks. The results of the meta-analysis indicated no effects of PJT compared to control conditions (including specific-active controls) for in-water vertical jump or agility (ES = − 0.15 to 0.03; p = 0.477 to 0.899), or for body mass, fat mass, and thigh girth (ES = 0.06 to 0.15; p = 0.452 to 0.841). In terms of measures of PF, moderate-to-large effects were noted in favour of the PJT groups compared to the control groups (including specific-active control groups) for one-repetition maximum back squat strength, horizontal jump distance, squat jump height, and countermovement jump height (ES = 0.67 to 1.47; p = 0.041 to < 0.001), in addition to a small effect noted in favour of the PJT for SSP time-trial speed (ES = 0.42; p = 0.005). Certainty of evidence across the included studies varied from very low-to-moderate.
Conclusions
PJT is more effective to improve measures of PF and SSP in WSA compared to control conditions involving traditional sport-specific training as well as alternative training interventions (e.g. resistance training). It is worth noting that the present findings are derived from 26 studies of moderate-to-high methodological quality, low-to-moderate impact of heterogeneity, and very low-to-moderate certainty of evidence based on GRADE.
Trial registration The protocol for this systematic review with meta-analysis was published in the Open Science platform (OSF) on January 23, 2022, under the registration doi https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/NWHS3 (internet archive link: https://archive.org/details/osf-registrations-nwhs3-v1).
Background
A growing body of literature is available regarding the effects of plyometric jump training (PJT) on measures of physical fitness (PF) and sport-specific performance (SSP) in-water sports athletes (WSA, i.e. those competing in sports that are practiced on [e.g. rowing] or in [e.g. swimming; water polo] water). Indeed, incoherent findings have been observed across individual studies making it difficult to provide the scientific community and coaches with consistent evidence. As such, a comprehensive systematic literature search should be conducted to clarify the existent evidence, identify the major gaps in the literature, and offer recommendations for future studies.
Aim
To examine the effects of PJT compared with active/specific-active controls on the PF (one-repetition maximum back squat strength, squat jump height, countermovement jump height, horizontal jump distance, body mass, fat mass, thigh girth) and SSP (in-water vertical jump, in-water agility, time trial) outcomes in WSA, through a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized controlled studies.
Methods
The electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched up to January 2022. According to the PICOS approach, the eligibility criteria were: (population) healthy WSA; (intervention) PJT interventions involving unilateral and/or bilateral jumps, and a minimal duration of ≥ 3 weeks; (comparator) active (i.e. standard sports training) or specific-active (i.e. alternative training intervention) control group(s); (outcome) at least one measure of PF (e.g. jump height) and/or SSP (e.g. time trial) before and after training; and (study design) multi-groups randomized and non-randomized controlled trials. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. The DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model was used to compute the meta-analyses, reporting effect sizes (ES, i.e. Hedges’ g) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. Certainty or confidence in the body of evidence for each outcome was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE), considering its five dimensions: risk of bias in studies, indirectness, inconsistency, imprecision, and risk of publication bias.
Results
A total of 11,028 studies were identified with 26 considered eligible for inclusion. The median PEDro score across the included studies was 5.5 (moderate-to-high methodological quality). The included studies involved a total of 618 WSA of both sexes (330 participants in the intervention groups [31 groups] and 288 participants in the control groups [26 groups]), aged between 10 and 26 years, and from different sports disciplines such as swimming, triathlon, rowing, artistic swimming, and water polo. The duration of the training programmes in the intervention and control groups ranged from 4 to 36 weeks. The results of the meta-analysis indicated no effects of PJT compared to control conditions (including specific-active controls) for in-water vertical jump or agility (ES = − 0.15 to 0.03; p = 0.477 to 0.899), or for body mass, fat mass, and thigh girth (ES = 0.06 to 0.15; p = 0.452 to 0.841). In terms of measures of PF, moderate-to-large effects were noted in favour of the PJT groups compared to the control groups (including specific-active control groups) for one-repetition maximum back squat strength, horizontal jump distance, squat jump height, and countermovement jump height (ES = 0.67 to 1.47; p = 0.041 to < 0.001), in addition to a small effect noted in favour of the PJT for SSP time-trial speed (ES = 0.42; p = 0.005). Certainty of evidence across the included studies varied from very low-to-moderate.
Conclusions
PJT is more effective to improve measures of PF and SSP in WSA compared to control conditions involving traditional sport-specific training as well as alternative training interventions (e.g. resistance training). It is worth noting that the present findings are derived from 26 studies of moderate-to-high methodological quality, low-to-moderate impact of heterogeneity, and very low-to-moderate certainty of evidence based on GRADE.
Trial registration The protocol for this systematic review with meta-analysis was published in the Open Science platform (OSF) on January 23, 2022, under the registration doi https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/NWHS3 (internet archive link: https://archive.org/details/osf-registrations-nwhs3-v1).
This meta-analysis aimed to assess the effects of plyometric jump training (PJT) on volleyball players’ vertical jump height (VJH), comparing changes with those observed in a matched control group. A literature search in the databases of PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and SCOPUS was conducted. Only randomized-controlled trials and studies that included a pre-to-post intervention assessment of VJH were included. They involved only healthy volleyball players with no restrictions on age or sex. Data were independently extracted from the included studies by two authors. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale was used to assess the risk of bias, and methodological quality, of eligible studies included in the review. From 7,081 records, 14 studies were meta-analysed. A moderate Cohen’s d effect size (ES = 0.82, p <0.001) was observed for VJH, with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 34.4%, p = 0.09) and no publication bias (Egger’s test, p = 0.59). Analyses of moderator variables revealed no significant differences for PJT program duration (≤8 vs. >8 weeks, ES = 0.79 vs. 0.87, respectively), frequency (≤2 vs. >2 sessions/week, ES = 0.83 vs. 0.78, respectively), total number of sessions (≤16 vs. >16 sessions, ES = 0.73 vs. 0.92, respectively), sex (female vs. male, ES = 1.3 vs. 0.5, respectively), age (≥19 vs. <19 years of age, ES = 0.89 vs. 0.70, respectively), and volume (>2,000 vs. <2,000 jumps, ES = 0.76 vs. 0.79, respectively). In conclusion, PJT appears to be effective in inducing improvements in volleyball players’ VJH. Improvements in VJH may be achieved by both male and female volleyball players, in different age groups, with programs of relatively low volume and frequency. Though PJT seems to be safe for volleyball players, it is recommended that an individualized approach, according to player position, is adopted with some players (e.g. libero) less prepared to sustain PJT loads.
This meta-analysis aimed to assess the effects of plyometric jump training (PJT) on volleyball players’ vertical jump height (VJH), comparing changes with those observed in a matched control group. A literature search in the databases of PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and SCOPUS was conducted. Only randomized-controlled trials and studies that included a pre-to-post intervention assessment of VJH were included. They involved only healthy volleyball players with no restrictions on age or sex. Data were independently extracted from the included studies by two authors. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale was used to assess the risk of bias, and methodological quality, of eligible studies included in the review. From 7,081 records, 14 studies were meta-analysed. A moderate Cohen’s d effect size (ES = 0.82, p <0.001) was observed for VJH, with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 34.4%, p = 0.09) and no publication bias (Egger’s test, p = 0.59). Analyses of moderator variables revealed no significant differences for PJT program duration (≤8 vs. >8 weeks, ES = 0.79 vs. 0.87, respectively), frequency (≤2 vs. >2 sessions/week, ES = 0.83 vs. 0.78, respectively), total number of sessions (≤16 vs. >16 sessions, ES = 0.73 vs. 0.92, respectively), sex (female vs. male, ES = 1.3 vs. 0.5, respectively), age (≥19 vs. <19 years of age, ES = 0.89 vs. 0.70, respectively), and volume (>2,000 vs. <2,000 jumps, ES = 0.76 vs. 0.79, respectively). In conclusion, PJT appears to be effective in inducing improvements in volleyball players’ VJH. Improvements in VJH may be achieved by both male and female volleyball players, in different age groups, with programs of relatively low volume and frequency. Though PJT seems to be safe for volleyball players, it is recommended that an individualized approach, according to player position, is adopted with some players (e.g. libero) less prepared to sustain PJT loads.
This study sought to analyze the relationship between in-season training workload with changes in aerobic power (VO2max), maximum and resting heart rate (HRmax and HRrest), linear sprint medium (LSM), and short test (LSS), in soccer players younger than 16 years (under-16 soccer players). We additionally aimed to explain changes in fitness levels during the in-season through regression models, considering accumulated load, baseline levels, and peak height velocity (PHV) as predictors. Twenty-three male sub-elite soccer players aged 15.5 ± 0.2 years (PHV: 13.6 ± 0.4 years; body height: 172.7 ± 4.2 cm; body mass: 61.3 ± 5.6 kg; body fat: 13.7% ± 3.9%; VO2max: 48.4 ± 2.6 mL⋅kg–1⋅min–1), were tested three times across the season (i.e., early-season (EaS), mid-season (MiS), and end-season (EnS) for VO2max, HRmax, LSM, and LSS. Aerobic and speed variables gradually improved over the season and had a strong association with PHV. Moreover, the HRmax demonstrated improvements from EaS to EnS; however, this was more evident in the intermediate period (from EaS to MiS) and had a strong association with VO2max. Regression analysis showed significant predictions for VO2max [F(2, 20) = 8.18, p ≤ 0.001] with an R2 of 0.45. In conclusion, the meaningful variation of youth players’ fitness levels can be observed across the season, and such changes can be partially explained by the load imposed.
This study sought to analyze the relationship between in-season training workload with changes in aerobic power (VO2max), maximum and resting heart rate (HRmax and HRrest), linear sprint medium (LSM), and short test (LSS), in soccer players younger than 16 years (under-16 soccer players). We additionally aimed to explain changes in fitness levels during the in-season through regression models, considering accumulated load, baseline levels, and peak height velocity (PHV) as predictors. Twenty-three male sub-elite soccer players aged 15.5 ± 0.2 years (PHV: 13.6 ± 0.4 years; body height: 172.7 ± 4.2 cm; body mass: 61.3 ± 5.6 kg; body fat: 13.7% ± 3.9%; VO2max: 48.4 ± 2.6 mL⋅kg–1⋅min–1), were tested three times across the season (i.e., early-season (EaS), mid-season (MiS), and end-season (EnS) for VO2max, HRmax, LSM, and LSS. Aerobic and speed variables gradually improved over the season and had a strong association with PHV. Moreover, the HRmax demonstrated improvements from EaS to EnS; however, this was more evident in the intermediate period (from EaS to MiS) and had a strong association with VO2max. Regression analysis showed significant predictions for VO2max [F(2, 20) = 8.18, p ≤ 0.001] with an R2 of 0.45. In conclusion, the meaningful variation of youth players’ fitness levels can be observed across the season, and such changes can be partially explained by the load imposed.
Postural balance represents a fundamental movement skill for the successful performance of everyday and sport-related activities. There is ample evidence on the effectiveness of balance training on balance performance in athletic and non-athletic population. However, less is known on potential transfer effects of other training types, such as plyometric jump training (PJT) on measures of balance. Given that PJT is a highly dynamic exercise mode with various forms of jump-landing tasks, high levels of postural control are needed to successfully perform PJT exercises. Accordingly, PJT has the potential to not only improve measures of muscle strength and power but also balance. To systematically review and synthetize evidence from randomized and non-randomized controlled trials regarding the effects of PJT on measures of balance in apparently healthy participants. Systematic literature searches were performed in the electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, and SCOPUS. A PICOS approach was applied to define inclusion criteria, (i) apparently healthy participants, with no restrictions on their fitness level, sex, or age, (ii) a PJT program, (iii) active controls (any sport-related activity) or specific active controls (a specific exercise type such as balance training), (iv) assessment of dynamic, static balance pre- and post-PJT, (v) randomized controlled trials and controlled trials. The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. This meta-analysis was computed using the inverse variance random-effects model. The significance level was set at p <0.05. The initial search retrieved 8,251 plus 23 records identified through other sources. Forty-two articles met our inclusion criteria for qualitative and 38 for quantitative analysis (1,806 participants [990 males, 816 females], age range 9–63 years). PJT interventions lasted between 4 and 36 weeks. The median PEDro score was 6 and no study had low methodological quality (≤3). The analysis revealed significant small effects of PJT on overall (dynamic and static) balance (ES = 0.46; 95% CI = 0.32–0.61; p < 0.001), dynamic (e.g., Y-balance test) balance (ES = 0.50; 95% CI = 0.30–0.71; p < 0.001), and static (e.g., flamingo balance test) balance (ES = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.31–0.67; p < 0.001). The moderator analyses revealed that sex and/or age did not moderate balance performance outcomes. When PJT was compared to specific active controls (i.e., participants undergoing balance training, whole body vibration training, resistance training), both PJT and alternative training methods showed similar effects on overall (dynamic and static) balance (p = 0.534). Specifically, when PJT was compared to balance training, both training types showed similar effects on overall (dynamic and static) balance (p = 0.514). Conclusion: Compared to active controls, PJT showed small effects on overall balance, dynamic and static balance. Additionally, PJT produced similar balance improvements compared to other training types (i.e., balance training). Although PJT is widely used in athletic and recreational sport settings to improve athletes' physical fitness (e.g., jumping; sprinting), our systematic review with meta-analysis is novel in as much as it indicates that PJT also improves balance performance. The observed PJT-related balance enhancements were irrespective of sex and participants' age. Therefore, PJT appears to be an adequate training regime to improve balance in both, athletic and recreational settings.
Postural balance represents a fundamental movement skill for the successful performance of everyday and sport-related activities. There is ample evidence on the effectiveness of balance training on balance performance in athletic and non-athletic population. However, less is known on potential transfer effects of other training types, such as plyometric jump training (PJT) on measures of balance. Given that PJT is a highly dynamic exercise mode with various forms of jump-landing tasks, high levels of postural control are needed to successfully perform PJT exercises. Accordingly, PJT has the potential to not only improve measures of muscle strength and power but also balance. To systematically review and synthetize evidence from randomized and non-randomized controlled trials regarding the effects of PJT on measures of balance in apparently healthy participants. Systematic literature searches were performed in the electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, and SCOPUS. A PICOS approach was applied to define inclusion criteria, (i) apparently healthy participants, with no restrictions on their fitness level, sex, or age, (ii) a PJT program, (iii) active controls (any sport-related activity) or specific active controls (a specific exercise type such as balance training), (iv) assessment of dynamic, static balance pre- and post-PJT, (v) randomized controlled trials and controlled trials. The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. This meta-analysis was computed using the inverse variance random-effects model. The significance level was set at p <0.05. The initial search retrieved 8,251 plus 23 records identified through other sources. Forty-two articles met our inclusion criteria for qualitative and 38 for quantitative analysis (1,806 participants [990 males, 816 females], age range 9–63 years). PJT interventions lasted between 4 and 36 weeks. The median PEDro score was 6 and no study had low methodological quality (≤3). The analysis revealed significant small effects of PJT on overall (dynamic and static) balance (ES = 0.46; 95% CI = 0.32–0.61; p < 0.001), dynamic (e.g., Y-balance test) balance (ES = 0.50; 95% CI = 0.30–0.71; p < 0.001), and static (e.g., flamingo balance test) balance (ES = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.31–0.67; p < 0.001). The moderator analyses revealed that sex and/or age did not moderate balance performance outcomes. When PJT was compared to specific active controls (i.e., participants undergoing balance training, whole body vibration training, resistance training), both PJT and alternative training methods showed similar effects on overall (dynamic and static) balance (p = 0.534). Specifically, when PJT was compared to balance training, both training types showed similar effects on overall (dynamic and static) balance (p = 0.514). Conclusion: Compared to active controls, PJT showed small effects on overall balance, dynamic and static balance. Additionally, PJT produced similar balance improvements compared to other training types (i.e., balance training). Although PJT is widely used in athletic and recreational sport settings to improve athletes' physical fitness (e.g., jumping; sprinting), our systematic review with meta-analysis is novel in as much as it indicates that PJT also improves balance performance. The observed PJT-related balance enhancements were irrespective of sex and participants' age. Therefore, PJT appears to be an adequate training regime to improve balance in both, athletic and recreational settings.